Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion 

Skip to active discussions.

Skip to active discussions
Shortcut:
WP:MFD
Deletion discussions
Deletion policy
Purge -

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents

Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

  • Help:
  • Portal:
  • MediaWiki:
  • Wikipedia:
This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
  • User:
When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding "{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~" to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
When the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contribution to the encyclopedia, please consider using proposed deletion. (Please do not use it when these conditions are not met.) This is a lighter-weight process, and permits deletions which are unlikely to be contested to be made without requiring discussion and consensus.
  • the various Talk: namespaces

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

  • Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
  • Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

I.
Edit PageName.

  Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{subst:mfd}}

or

{{subst:mfd|GroupName}}

if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination.

Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{mfd}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary and don't mark it as a minor edit. Consider checking the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This will help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page.

If you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page, consider using {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}.
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

  You should see a prominent link to "this page's entry" in the new article text.
Follow that link (to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]) and enter this text:

{{subst:mfd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include a reason after text=. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the ongoing discussion in your watchlist. Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

  Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}

Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page.
  • While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:MFDWarning|Article}} to their talk page.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, consider placing {{priorxfd|pagename}} in the discussion area to link to the previous discussions.

Administrator instructions

Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
Purge the server's cache of this page

2008-07-26

User:JohnLeoWalsh

This is a bizarre collection of names and birthdates on a user page under the heading "God's People/Pets". Most of this user's edits are to this page, and yet is is an indiscriminate list, not helpful to Wikipedia, and it appears to violate at the very least the spirit of WP:USER. An alternative interpretation is that this is a collection of information about real living persons, in which case the description of the "type of person/pet" may prove offensive to the individuals concerned. I am in two minds about all of this, but I feel it warrants community attention as to whether it should be deleted Fritzpoll (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Definitely delete, and perhaps speedily, with oversight, as with the birthdays, ages, et al that it includes, if these are real people--and they rather appear to be--this shouldn't just be deleted, it should be oversighted, and the user warned that re-created at the risk of his/her being banned. S. Dean Jameson 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's either unencyclopedic fiction that violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST or it's genuine personal details of various people that should be removed. In either case it does not belong here. ~ mazca t | c 23:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per S. Dean Jameson. This kind of stuff should just be gone quickly. JuJube (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and oversight Totally inappropriate and Wikipedia is not a webhost. The user is additionally not here to contribute constructively, and that should be taken into account. Enigma message 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per all. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note My guess is that this user is autistic. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 01:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Crash Underride/Major edits

I would like this sub page of mine to be deleted, please. Thank you, Crash. Crash Underride 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can just tag it with {{db-u1}} to request it be speedy-deleted, as it's in your userspace. ~ mazca t | c 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jtrivison

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. User hasn't made many substantial contributions outside of editing his userpage, which he is essentially using as a free web host--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Prohlep/farn

Attack page, solely used for venting on another user and attempting to obtain offline details on him. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-07-25

User:MisterWiki/Greatest Vandals/Diegogrez/Vandals in Encyclopedia DG

Unencyclopaedic, no point to this whatsoever. MisterWiki is merely giving out his own IP and giving some whois data to try and make it look like the sockpuppetry case didn't establish that he was a sockpuppet of DiegoGrez.  Asenine  09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Mostly per nom., and agree that is completely unencyclopaedic. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - As nominator said, completely unrelated to the encyclopedia. doña macy [talk] 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, just some whois info that we don't need. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep pending a response from the user. We shouldn't be jumping to MfD without some attempt to communicate with the user hosting that page. There might be something we don't know about, like cross-wiki vandalism, or something else that no one has considered. It's also considered polite to discuss these things first. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding something. What sockpuppetry case is the nom talking about? -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. It should also be noted that MisterWiki follows a lot of the same patterns as Diegogrez, and I think he's another sockpuppet. JuJube (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Dokdo and East Sea

Wikipedia is not a place for agendas. This task force would deal with only several articles like Liancourt Rocks, Sea of Japan, Rusk document. It would cause more disputes and edit wars. The suggester should've sought pre and long discussions with members of WikiProject Korea. However it is created by a user without any attempt to discuss the matter.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. A work group that was added to WP:KOREA earlier today by User:Ryuch without prior consultation or approval by other project members. Such a work group applies only to a very small number of articles, the content and naming of which is a constant source of dispute and controversy. I want to assume good faith, but this could be seen as a way of legitimising a certain POV under the banner of this WikiProject. A one man work group for a limited number of articles would hardly be a good idea at the best of times. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The editing articles would be K-J related articles not only Dokdo and East Sea. As it is stated, this project will not try to achieve a POV. As I suggested at the discussion page of Liancourt Rocks, I want to summarize the discussion in the form of an FAQ. Also I suggest to maintain the FAQ under this umbrella. You mentioned about the prior consultation or approval, I don't know the other working groups in this project had the similar process. If the consensus is the approval process is required, let me know the prior case for the process. I want to abide by the procedure by proposing this working group to the members of the project. --Cheol (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The very name of the work group is controversial because these are not the accepted names used on Wikipedia (the articles are at Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan). Such a work group would also fall under WP:JAPAN, so it would be advisable to approach both WikiProjects to see if a) it is a good idea, and b) whether or not anyone is interested. PC78 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it seems there exists a larger scale NPOV. Those names in use do not reflect the NPOV. I suggest to found this working group to help the community find out the neutrality. By using those names favored by some editors, I think it's not possible to neutralize. Do you think it's possible? --Cheol (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Then you have to participate in a discussion of those articles or raise an issue with good rationales and evidences. The task force under the project is not a good trying.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy as a proposal, pending further discussion with the WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-07-24

User:Llooke11

This is an attempt to have the content deleted, however I am not seeking prejudice against the creation of a proper article on the subject.

This page is a userfied article. It is not encyclopedic and appears to me to be more an espousal of dogma and opinion than an encyclopedic article. Perhaps great stuff for a church pamphlet but this is not for an encyclopedia.

It contains gems such as "==FYI:== The majority of Satan’s influence on man is by his use of spiritual power directly upon man by his people". It does not belong on Wikipedia, it does not even belong in user space.

Wikipedia is not a soap box. The reason I am going to MfD is because the user has already made it clear they don't consent to its removal. Chillum 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Abstain as involved party. However, this is not at all what I envisioned when I invited the user to work an article on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in his user space. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While I am all for building articles in the userspace, and I have no objection to this particular topic, I would say a better result would come from starting over than it would from working off of this. Chillum 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is in fact an appropriate usage of userspace per the guideline. But if none of the information contained therein can be used to create an actual article in the namespace I'd say blank it and have them start over. Synergy 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I'm satisfied. Synergy 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If this was an encyclopedic article in progress then I would agree, but this seems to be a work of original research. Chillum 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Purely polemical, which the policy Synergy points out prohibits. Yes, it should be included. Chillum 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I am going off of a cursory glance, but one of the headers indicate that much of it is evidence or sources for the article. One of which appears to be the Church of Satan. While this is in the ballpark of my area (Occult), I'd say an article could be created in the future, but most of this is just garbage. But I doubt its all OR. Synergy 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if all "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" are removed from it(per Wikipedia:User page), and if there is anything left afterwards, then I will withdraw this nomination. But to be honest, I think you would have a few stray verbs left looking for a noun to make a sentence with if we removed all polemical statements. Chillum 22:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. Agreed. I'm not adverse to deleting it, as its basically the same as blanking to page. I just think some form of article can be created (not now though) in the future with that information. Would I read it? Probably not. Synergy 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note The user in question was just blocked for 2 days (vandalism). Enigma message 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete - Some things in here could cause civility issues, considering the views of others that are involved. Perhaps having a userbox that says 'I am a Christian' would mean the same if you looked deep into it, but it's certainly not explicit.  Asenine  09:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain, but could you point out these civility concerns? Synergy 10:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are some rather sweeping condemnations of cultures in the document. Such as "blasphemers of the Holy Spirit will exist within the more popularized, seemingly less malevolent, forms of Satanism like Wicca"(Wicca is not Satanism), "Irish Travelers are a nomadic, gypsy clans who live in a few organized colonies in solitary seclusion (e.g. Aiken, GA) and blaspheme the Holy Spirit as a clan tradition", "Occultists who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, who sell their soul for eternity to be granted unabated Satanic empowerment in this age represent .5% of the population of the United States"... There is plenty in there to be offended by. Regardless, even if it was not offensive, Wikipedia is not the place to espouse ones religious beliefs. Chillum 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Synergy 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:SOAP. These are policy, and also apply to userspace.  Sandstein  22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, though I am loath to suggest this for a userfied article. The main purpose for userfying articles is for items either directly related to the editor or articles which are in the process of getting to an encyclopedic nature but would currently fail AfD. I doubt that any article which claims either explicitly or implicitly to be the one and only truth on a religious matter is never going to pass Wikipedia's WP:RANT standards. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Mazandaran

There is no Wikiproject which deals with the subject. It is quite a specific subject and doesn't cover a broad subject. No one is updating it Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Posturewriter

I am not 100% sure MfD is the correct process, but I was told on ANI to try it.

Please see the section entitled "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics". This section appears to run afoul of WP:UP#NOT point #9, in that it outlines "perceived flaws" of other users, and does not appear to be in preparation for a user RfC or some other process. (Note this, but firstly it is about this' user, not about his "Critics", and secondly I think it will be quite some time before that RFC/U reaches a conclusion on anything of import)

The user was asked to remove or revise this section, but refused. I personally do not feel this belongs on the page, as it does not in any way facilitate the goal of creating a quality encyclopedia. I'd like to get community consensus on that. Jaysweet (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment If we delete the page, we lose everything, including various warnings about COI, OR, and such. Is there a way to permanently remove just the objectionable parts of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That's actually what I'm endorsing, is just removing that section. I tried to raise the issue at ANI, and although some admins told me they thought it should be removed, none of them were willing to do so themselves, and Chillum (talk · contribs) advised me to use MfD. I told him I didn't think it was the appropriate process because I only wanted a section removed, but he reassured me that MfD is what I wanted. <shrug> I'll dig up the thread from the archives if necessary. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Userspace content disputes, especially those based on userpage guidelines can be settled through MfD. The result, nor even the goal does not need to be deletion, but the community insisted removal of the objectionable content. That being said, I am not at this point making an opinion on the matter as I have not had time to review the content in question. Chillum 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Chillum. Sorry if I'm being a jack-ass, I just feel nervous because I've never seen MfD used this way. But as you can see, I defer to your far vaster experience :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing;
What you are suggesting is that all of your criticisms of me on my own Usertalk page should remain, and all of my words of defence are removed. which would be rigging the rules against me.
I would like to recommend that wiki policy be improved to allow defence as standard practice for all new contributors who are not familiar with the intricacies of wiki policy fine print.
I am in control of the situation on my Usertalk page, and quite confident in my ability to defend myself against criticism, and don’t think it is necessary for me to go to your Usertalk page and attack you. If I did, I am absolutely certain that you do everything you could do to defend yourself.Posturewriter (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
Jaysweet;
On a previous discussion page called Wikiquette Alert, I saw your comments, and as I came here as a contributor, and was having critics using policy against me, I asked you to assist me with determining, and removing anything which was deemed as inappropritae in “The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics” on my User talk with the following words . . . “ I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there.
I am happy for you to decide what to remove and don’t see any reason to take it any furtherPosturewriter (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
  • Keep I see no basis for deleting the page, or even forcing the removal of the section--it is not an attack on specific named editors,a nd one is welcome to criticize Wikipedia policies as one likes if one doesnt violate npa. DGG (talk)

2008-07-23

Wikipedia:Clean Energy

All comments except IP's first contribution expressing skepticism about the page's purpose. It can only lead to a rambling and divisive discussion if anything, and it is entirely outside the scope of building an encyclopedia. Delete per WP:SOAP. --Storkk (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: if deleted, it should of course be de-linked from Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board. --Storkk (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this page is appropriate or not, but if not, then don't delete, but mark as historical and protect if necessary. Does Wikipedia have a position on things like "Clean energy". This could evolve into a meaningful essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Whatever it is or isn't, I have a hard time using the word "historical" to describe this page[1]. Besides which, historical pages are usually kept for posterity, to show their impact on the history of the project. This has had no discernible impact, and I don't see how it would ever have the potential to do so. --Storkk (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Had User:Djbaniel actually contributed to the contents of the page, apart from simply instantiating it, I would certainly agree... but why userfy something where the user concerned has had no input whatsoever? Then again, userfication would cause no harm that I could see, so I'd support it. --Storkk (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless, possibly disruptive, absolutely no need for it. This isn't the place for such a discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Page was created yesterday.. you couldn't wait to get a response from the author? We don't even know what this is exactly about. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pull from Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board, where the creator has commented "No pull date for now due to potential importance". Nifboy (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    Done. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SOAP, especially as it's in the announcements box. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy per above. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't figure out what the page is for, but I think it violates WP:SOAP. --Carnildo (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps

1. No one seems at all interested (no one apart for myself has joined) 2. The project is unnecessary as the subject is covered by its parent project 3. In toto, its existence is vaguely embarrassing Ericoides (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like a very worthy project, not at all embarrassing. It is disappointing to not have people join you, but it is worthwhile without them. If you are absolutely certain, it qualifies for speedy deletion G7 "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.", but I hope you don't. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I had been asked to delete it accordingly, but declined, and suggested it come here. Personally, I agree it would be a shame to delete it just because not yet popular, and I urge you to work on it as you can--if you make process, people may well join you. DGG (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-07-22

User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory citations

This is also content that is kept in violation of the deletion of the Bios theory article. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Weakish keep. Meh, it's just a list of references. Even if User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory is deleted, I don't see how this does any harm. Might even be useful for anyone thinking of trying to write a legitimate article about the subject. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A list of references is clearly appropriate stuff to collect in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This should be grouped in with the below discussion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with a list of citations. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory

This is a copy of a deleted article kept in user space in violation of Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages and Wikipedia:CSD#General criteria 4. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. A May 2006 deletion of a mainspace version doesn't preclude further work in userspace. This could lead to a good article, so it it appropriate in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    It hasn't been worked on: there is direct evidence from User: Lakinekaki that he is simply keeping it in user space to allow people access to it in defiance of the deletion discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    That's absurd. I improved novelty definition that had errors, and citations are being added to the citation page. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this has not been worked on in a very long time. If the user in question shows a good faith intention to keep working on it (and explains why they haven't touched it since 2006), I'll change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:GNG: ...secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The purpose of citations page is that people add secondary sources as they find them. I don't have access to journal indexing services, like Thompson, nor to other paper based catalogs/indexes. All I can use is Google Scholar search, and not everything is published on the internet. As soon as someone gives citation to a secondary review of bios, Bios page will fully meet all WP policies and criteria for inclusion. I did correct the error that existed in the definition of the novelty. Also, content moved to user space for explicit improvement is excluded...CSD #4 That is precisely the purpose of the citations page, to improve references for the bios page. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So why haven't you worked on this in over a year? --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem with the article is lack of citations of secondary sources, and those are being added. As I said, I don't have access to indexing services, so I hope people who do will add something there. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that when article was started, WP Notability guideline was different and there was no explicit need for secondary sources, but only for publications in independent sources, which bios has. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web host, and I note that this article comes up 7th when you Google for 'Bios theory'. It's one thing to allow people to keep an article on a user page for a short time, quite another for it to remain there for years which is basically a way to get around the deletion (and of course means it can be made as POV as the editor wishes, etc). Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WP placed nofollow on all external links, and that is why even user pages become well ranked on Google. By that I mean MANY user pages, not only mine. Here is an example [2]. So should we all delete our user pages because Jimbo Wales decided to disrespect all the contributions, sources, and references, and give them no credit in the eyes of search engines?Lakinekaki (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per SmokyJoe. Actually, this appears well-referenced and deserves to be in the mainspace. It may be worth recreating the article and letting it have another shot. II | (t - c) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Consensus can change, but what was said in the old AfD is still true today. We aren't a webhost and if this article hasn't been touched in a long time it isn't hard to assume that it isn't meant to be touched for a while. I'm not an expert in dynamical systems, so I can't see if my being unable to make heads or tails of it is my fault or the fault of the theory/article, but it doesn't seem to make clear claims. Article hasn't been touched for ~18 months. While we have disclaimers that userspace isn't mainspace, we need to reign in some of the long term storage in userspace of articles deleted by the community. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Blank in case the user wishes to come back and work on it. Blanking it will render the page useless to search engine results. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this constructive idea! Lakinekaki (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in compliance with policy. Antelan 15:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Smith Jones/Alan Cabal (journalist)

I think Smith Jones went on a vaca or something, but we were working on this draft which has now been replaced by the resurrected Alan Cabal article; anyhoo, long story short, this draft is now high up in google rankings when the mainspace article is the one (up-to-date too) that should be at #1 or so. please delete this old draft. thanks Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - It looks like the current article is based on a copy and pasted version of the sandbox. If that's the case, the history from the sandbox should be merged into the actual article (then the resulting redirect deleted). Mr.Z-man 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    actually, didn't want all those dinky little edits to go into mainspace. like a draft? but actually the old article history is there too. I say just zap it, unless? Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    Those "dinky little edits" (especially the ones before the move to userspace) are required for GFDL attribution. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Alan Cabal. This will hide it from web crawlers. Keep the redirect to keep the contribution history available as the easiest was to satisfy the GFDL. Optionally, If you don't like it staying in userspace move the redirect to something like Talk:Alan Cabal/Userfied draft. Merging of the histories could be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OKAY, OKAY So there are three parts here: the entire history before deletion, the userpage draft we worked on here, the continuation where the Alan Cabal article was re-introduced to mainspace. Can someone actually merge all three stages of the article's history? Do that, and I think we'll all be happy. But it would be great if all drafts, forget redirects, where annihilated. One article, one history, one google listing. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

2008-07-24

2008-07-22

2008-07-20
Could not update stat
UP